Legal Opinion

Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Millonig

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 20, 1999No. 98-1798PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings of the board and its conclusion that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) by failing to file the tax returns.

*405Because respondent was originally charged with a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) and had notice and an opportunity to make his defense, relator’s subsequent withdrawal of the charge did not preclude the panel and the board from finding that respondent’s stipulated misconduct violated this Disciplinary Rule. We consequently distinguish Disciplinary Counsel v. Simecek (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 320, 699 N.E.2d 933, in which we held that after the record was closed, the board…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. FowerbaughOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. SimecekOhio Supreme Court · 1998

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. MarkijohnOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Toledo Bar Assn. v. AboodOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Lake County Bar Ass'n v. EzzoneOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Akron Bar Assn. v. HoldaOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Disciplinary Counsel v. MillonigOhio Supreme Court · 2006

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API